Friday, September 26, 2014

After I wrote my last article about TWIT's latest round of
upheavals I found myself pondering why it was that I bothered to pay so much
attention to a tiny podcast network.

Others have wondered as well...

Hell, I even wonder at times but I think I have an
answer. So let this article serve as my explanation
to anyone that questions my motives.

Some might call the articles I write about TWIT as nothing
more than trolling hit pieces born from some beef I have with Leo Laporte.

And you would be wrong...

Trolls only seek to garner attention to
themselves at the expense of their

target.
I don't seek a target, I have a vested interest. One that may surprise you.

You see, I want TWIT to succeed.

Unlike the Revision 3
and 5 by 5's of the world, TWIT is not
just another podcast portal with prerecorded content waiting to be pulled off some
virtual bookshelf. It's a living,
breathing entity 24/7 that allows its viewers free access to not only relevant
content but a chance to peek behind the curtains of an emerging broadcast
medium.

Which is something most podcast aggregators don't do. There's no life to their offerings, just a
jukebox carousel of pre-packaged content.

TWIT was something different. It's the lovechild of Leo Laporte and TechTV
both of which I was an avid fan. Yes
there were reruns but there was also live programming and interactivity with
the hosts not to mention the opportunity to see what magic the Wizard (Laporte) was crafting behind the scenes.

This was the prototype for what Internet broadcasting should
be. Viewer driven, dynamic, interactive
and compelling.

It was the kind of programming that you could leave on all
day in the background if you wanted to.
No playlists, no stale overproduced content, no empty headed
"spokesmodels" that wouldn't know the difference between a smart
cache and a Smart car...

But beginning around the early part of 2012 just after the
move to TWIT's new studio, the Brick House, things started to change. There was an increasing emphasis on even long
running shows to be profitable. While
there's no denying that someone has to pay the bills the content began to
suffer as ever more ads crept in and Laporte took a less central role. With no heir apparent to TWIT, leadership flounders
and content frequently takes a back seat to the "business" of TWIT. All the time never realizing that the focus
on ad revenue is killing the soul of the network.

So why do I care?

Because an opportunity is slipping away due to greed, hubris
and indifference. It's not so much about
Laporte, TWIT or even any of the shows so much as the impending failure of an
experiment that should otherwise succeed.

TWIT is the prototype for online media in a way that CNET
could only dream of being. It's the only
option poised to challenge traditional and new media outlets. If it fails it's unlikely that we'll see it's
kind again and frankly there's no good reason for it. The network continues to shoot itself in the
foot and become less relevant by the day as both talent and content migrate to
greener pastures. The only response, to
continue the slow slide into oblivion with denial and delusion.

TWIT is repeating the history of its ancestor in spite of
claims to the contrary. What began as
the offspring of TechTV is dangerously close to meeting the fate of G4.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

I'm starting to feel like a gossip columnist but it's an
occupational hazard when one follows the sinusoidal wave of chaos that TWIT
appears to be lately.

While the bulk of TWIT programming has soldiered on with little
change since my last article,
when changes do happen they can be dramatic.

Take for instance the latest installment of Lisa Kentzell's "Changes at
TWIT" found on the TWIT.TV home page and perhaps updated a bit too frequently.

In it we find out:

·
OMGCraft is moving off the network

·
RedditUp is on hiatus

·
Marketing Mavericks is getting a new time slot
(again)

·
The Social Hour is cancelled

Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and deal
with the less weighty of our little punch list.

OMGCraft:

While OMGCraft's appeal was admittedly niche, it was
arguably a better show than say "Marketing Mavericks" with more of a
following if it's companion YouTube channel is any indicator.

Considering what the show started out as and
what it became after joining TWIT's "official" lineup it's
understandable that host Chad "OMGChad" Johnson would choose to take
it off network. If it returns to the
more freeform format of its TWIT "beta" days it should do well for
Johnson and I honestly hope that comes to pass.

RedditUP:

While mildly entertaining I never quite understood the point
of this show. Co-hosted by Sarah Lane
and Chad Johnson, It covered the happenings of the social network that isn't, specifically
Reddit. While Lane and Johnson did their
best, the show was the equivalent of somebody building a podcast around their
twitter feed.

But at least it wasn't...

Marketing Mavericks:

So the wildly successful (that's sarcasm folks) marketing podcast is getting moved to another
time slot, again. This is the TWIT
podcast that introduces viewers to those giants of industry that brought the
world opt-out spam, singing chickens and pop-up ads.

Considering the far more "niche"
OMGCraft podcast consistently produces episodes that can crest 20,000 views on its
associated YouTube channel, Marketing Mavericks by comparison struggles to
reach 50. Why this show continues while
other more popular examples regularly get the boot is a continuing mystery.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room...

The Social Hour:

"...We are also
retiring The Social Hour. Originally called net@night, it is one of our
longest-running netcasts, starting when “social media” was still in its infancy.
As the landscape has matured and trends have shifted towards apps, we feel that
social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our network..."

This one is almost on par with Tom Merritt leaving...

While admittedly "The Social Hour" at times seemed
more like an hour spent with a couple of chattering valley girls, the content
was nonetheless relevant to its audience.
With no social media rock left unturned even those with a passing
interest could find something of use.

Considering the strict adherence Laporte and Kentzell demand
of TWIT shows to be profitable, it's longevity could only be a result of its popularity
with viewers...right?

It's abrupt departure is likely more significant than it may
seem on the surface.

The Social Hour debuted on March 30, 2011 picking up where
its TWIT predecessor "Net@night" had left off with host Amber
MacArthur and Sarah Lane taking over co-host duties from Laporte. Meaning that some incarnation of the show had
continuously ran for nearly 9 years on the TWIT network before being deemed "redundant."

The decision was apparently made within the last week as no
indication of the show's cancellation was indicated during the most recent episode that found Lane closing with,
"We will see you next week."

Apparently not Sarah...

There was no episode of "The Social Hour" (not even a rerun) during
its normal timeslot this week making the hour long void between "Know
How" and "Coding 101" conspicuously present. Even the show's icon had been moved to the
"retired shows" section of the twit.tv website. A small but powerful statement as most
retired shows have historically remained in the "current shows"
lineup for at least a month.

The justification, "
...we feel that social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our
network..." plays to the supposed redundancy of content. Yet TWIT still maintains not one but 3 shows based on the Apple Ecosystem with Macbreak weekly frequently rehashing content from Ipad Today, I5 for the Iphone not to mention This Week in Tech.And what of the lackluster Tech News Today(TNT)? Are we to infer that because a topic is covered that any other presentation is considered redundant as well?Then we must conclude that other TWIT shows like Windows Weekly, Security Now, This
Week in Tech and a host of others that regularly cover the same content as TNT are also on the chopping block.

It seems a double standard is at play here...

Perhaps this is part of a grand plan to eliminate any show
on the TWIT network that may threaten the relevance of the news department. Although
I don't see how that's possible considering the lack of improvement in Elgan's
performance on TNT after 9 months. TNT is nowhere to be found on the Itunes
top 40 tech podcasts. Which begs the question, if TNT isn't popular any more and isn't making enough money for TWIT because of it then isn't TNT itself "redundant?"

If we apply the same standard to TNT as has been brought to bear on other TWIT shows that have been cancelled then TNT must itself be discontinued. Don't hold your breath...

Kentzell has stated in the past
that her goal was to make TWIT less dependent on Laporte's persona and allow him more personal time away from the network. Truth be told, by and
large he has backed away from all but the core TWIT shows. In that respect she's succeeded but even a
cursory examination of Laporte's demeanor over the past year suggests that the
changes may not have yielded the expected results.

Watch any recent podcast of "The Tech Guy,"
Laporte's syndicated radio show, and frequently the lovable teddy bear of tech
is instead curt and irritable. For
example, a recent caller to the show found themselves on the receiving end of
the "dump button" because Laporte was unhappy with the pace of the
caller's question and later justified the action by saying the caller, "just wanted a free phone." It's not an isolated
incident either...

Even Laporte's guests aren't immune as they're often talked
over or cut off mid sentence regardless of the proximity of a commercial break. It's almost as though Laporte is in a race
to the finish of every show and would rather be somewhere else.

It's likely the result of stress but unfortunately it appears that
even indulging in the recreation that only Laporte's wealth can bring still can't alleviate
it.

For his own sake, perhaps Laporte should consider just leaving things be at TWIT for awhile.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

I've always believed that the work you do should matter to
you. If you're just plodding along day
after day counting the hours till the weekend then frankly you're just wasting
your and everyone else's time.

I know it's not always possible to "follow your
bliss" but life's too short to only enjoy the weekends.

After over 20 years in the field I've come to the
realization that the closest I can come to cubicle dwelling bliss is to either
run the IT department or just blithely take my marching orders at its lowest
rung.

Anything else just has me spinning my wheels.

So while my credentials include jobs in system
administration, support and project
management not to mention creating a successful IT consulting business, my
dreams of sitting in the big chair are about as likely as a winning lottery
ticket.

So as I scan the job boards and the occasional craigslist
posting I keep a vigilant eye open for positions that match the other end of my
proposed bliss...

I had thought I found one the other day. It was a support job that was described as
being part roving admin and part helpdesk.
The nice part was that if I had to go
anywhere the company provided the transportation.

It seemed perfect.
The pay rate was a little low but if I wasn't shouldering the cost of
transportation that was a leg up on anything else I'd seen.

My application had apparently impressed the hiring manager
enough for him to schedule a short phone screen.

In the course of the subsequent conversation the manager
told me that the job would involve around 80 hours per week at all hours. The prospective employee was expected to be
available round the clock 24/7/365 and work from the office, home and wherever
else he/she was required.

Believe it or not I was still considering the position even
after I did the math and figured out that I would be making $9.61 per hour
before taxes.

But that wasn't what really turned me off to the job.

It was the realization during the Q & A part of the
interview that this company, like many others, was built on making bad
decisions.

Decisions like:

Attempted "Cleaning" of rootkit, malware
and virus infections off of PC's instead of reloading from a backup image.

Not providing adequate training to your
technicians

Not staying current with technical advances

Supporting 20 year old servers with no hope of
replacement parts

Installing software that was no longer being supported
by the manufacturer

Not informing the client as to best practices or
upgrade options

Accepting liability for an SLA at a client where
meeting that SLA is impossible due to the previously mentioned reasons.

It all amounts to billing for work that isn't really being
done and I have a problem with that.

IT is an uphill battle and if you're not moving forward it
won't be long till you're moving the other direction. It seems that most of the major players
disagree, however, as they've built their IT support businesses off of doing
what amounts to little more than "busywork"

It's one of the reasons I don't make the money in consulting
that many think I should be. I like to
fix the problem once and move on from there.
I'm not one to keep beating a dead horse.

The client is the boss but I'm being paid to
know things they don't. That's a level
of trust that I refuse to betray. That
means that sometimes you have to have an uncomfortable conversation but I'd
rather lose a client that wants me to do shoddy work than continue on and
sacrifice my own integrity.

We're getting back to my original assertion that your work
life should be meaningful and anything less is just a waste of time.

Making money off not doing the job your clients are trusting
you to do is the ultimate expression of that and I can't stomach it.